real bucs fan wrote:It's also funny how Kamara is now an example when last year these same posters **** all over the guy.

I sure as hell didn't expect him to have the impact he did. I was on board for Cook or Mixon though. My gripes with Kamara were the same ones Bootz laid out, he didn't seem like a guy who would make a ton of hay in between the tackles. Turns out that with Brees and Ingram on the team, he didn't need to.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see this draft as Barkley or bust. I'd be very happy witha guy like Chubb in a later round if we got to draft Chubb or Nelson at 7. It's when we start talking about Barkley vs DB's with question marks that taking the elite RB becomes an easy choice.

I've always felt that the RB is one of the last things you get because of their generally shorter career peak. I also believe that drafting them is the best way to get a back, so you get all of their peak. We are currently set up to win now. We have a bunch of new DL that are closing on 30, just like McCoy. We are still on Winstons rookie deal. We have all the offensive weapons you could want except a back. Barkley would most likely be a home run pick.

Naismith wrote:There's been research done that a good running game doesn't actually improve the effectiveness of play action. I read it when it was tweeted out a few months ago but haven't been able to find it again. When I do, I'll post it.

It's long and complicated, the gist of it being that teams don't use play-action enough but that successfully running the ball has no measurable impact on the productiveness of a play-action fake:

Between 2011 and 2017, 93 percent of play-action passes occurred when the offense had between one and four rushes in the previous five plays. In this range, yards per play and its standard deviation are remarkably similar for all values of previous rush attempts. Looking at the graph of rushes in the previous 10 plays, teams are at least as successful at play-action when they have rushed one time in the previous 10 plays as when they have run seven or eight times in the previous 10 plays.

Putting this all together, I cannot find any support for the success of play-action passing being related in any way to a team's rushing statistics, whether measured by frequency or effectiveness.

Final Thoughts

Coming into this, I did not know what to expect. Since play-by-play data on play-action passing is not readily available, it was something I had long wondered but never been able to look into. After measuring this every way I could think if, it appears that the conventional wisdom that running is necessary for play-action passes to be effective should be questioned. We have a lot of evidence that play-action passing is more effective than non-play-action passing, so the big question that remains is why teams run play-action so infrequently (the percentage of passes that are play-action has hovered around 20 percent since 2011). What would happen if teams started devoting a higher share of their plays to play-action passing? Would the advantage persist or would defenses adjust?The recently-concluded 2017 playoffs may provide a glimpse into a future where play-action is more common. The Eagles attempted 21 play-action passes in the Super Bowl on 43 dropbacks (49 percent). Frequent use of play-action (33 percent of dropbacks against the Patriots and 54 percent against the Steelers) also helped the Jaguars score 65 points across two playoff games and nearly reach the Super Bowl. In the constant search for advantages in a competitive league, play-action passing appears to be an under-utilized edge.

Well so much goes into the "effectiveness" of play. You can have a whole defense bite terribly on a PA only to have the QB be off target. At the end of the day if you are being gashed by a rushing attack, I have to image you're going to try to cheat towards the run and be more susceptible to a PA. Likewise if the rush game has been trash, you can still bite on a PA, but you are less on edge to do so.

I do agree that the PA is not used enough. Neither is the pump fake imo.

I'm still not sure how I feel about Penny. Point blank, the guy is kind of boring to watch tape on. lolI think he's a lot more explosive than he's given credit for. He has this odd running style of being "just fast enough". Most college RBs try to get to full speed as soon as possible. Penny doesn't. He seems to have this default speed and just notched is up as needed, but he never notches back down which is good. Like, if he can jog into the endzone he probably would. But he can accelerate deceivingly fast, which I think throws off a lot of defenders angles.

Still behind Guice, Michel, and Chubbs on my list, but just another back I wouldn't hate in the second if need be. Overall this draft is shaping up to be a dream if we can land Nelson at 7.

Doctor wrote:I'm still not sure how I feel about Penny. Point blank, the guy is kind of boring to watch tape on. lolI think he's a lot more explosive than he's given credit for. He has this odd running style of being "just fast enough". Most college RBs try to get to full speed as soon as possible. Penny doesn't. He seems to have this default speed and just notched is up as needed, but he never notches back down which is good. Like, if he can jog into the endzone he probably would. But he can accelerate deceivingly fast, which I think throws off a lot of defenders angles.

Still behind Guice, Michel, and Chubbs on my list, but just another back I wouldn't hate in the second if need be. Overall this draft is shaping up to be a dream if we can land Nelson at 7.

I have not liked him at any point during this process and I still don't. He reminds me of Michael Pittman, and not in a complimentary way. The constant high knees and short-steps - it's a really short list of backs with that running style who've had great careers. His production doesn't mean a ton to me, either, considering he played in the same offense that made Donnell Pumphrey college football's all time leading rusher.

Man, wouldn't that be something? Hey, if he falls to the second, go for it.

Michael Lombardi of The Ringer reports teams are concerned about a bone-on-bone condition in Michel’s knee (via Rotoworld).

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Isn’t Michael Lombardi the doofus who once called Super Bowl winning head coach Doug Pederson the least qualified coach in the NFL? Yes. Yes, he is.

But there’s a difference between stating a (very dumb) opinion and sharing actual information you’ve heard. Lombardi is former NFL GM, of course, so it’s plausible he’s legitimately heard teams are concerned about Michel’s knee.

It’s not like this is coming out of nowhere. Mike Mayock, who isn’t a total moron, has also acknowledged there are concerns about Michel’s knee that could drop him into the second round. Despite this, Mayock has Michel as his No. 32 overall prospect. He also projected Michel to the Steelers at No. 28 in his only 2018 NFL Mock Draft.

Considering the timing of this news — the night before the NFL Draft — you have to question motives in play here. It’s quite possible some team that actually likes Michel is trying to leak out bad stuff about him so that he falls to their pick. That’s pretty messed up to screw with a young man’s life like that, but I wouldn’t put it past NFL people.

For Michel’s sake, hopefully his knee isn’t as bad as some teams might fear. Similar concerns about Eagles running back Jay Ajayi, which have proven to be true to some extent, dropped him to the fifth-round. Maybe the Eagles have been taking the “trying to find a Jay Train replacement” thing a little too literally.

Jokes aside, Michel is definitely a name to watch when it comes to Philadelphia’s pick at No. 32, or if the Birds trade down. A ton of mock drafts suddenly have the Eagles taking the Georgia running back (ESPN, Rotoworld, NFL Network’s Daniel Jeremiah, Philadelphia Daily News, etc.). The Sporting News also reported Michel’s one of the players the Birds are targeting.

So what’s going on with Guice? He is claiming that he was asked if he liked men and if his mother was a hooker doing interviews but not naming who asked him these questions? Sounds weird, perhaps I don’t have the full story?

Considering the timing of this news — the night before the NFL Draft — you have to question motives in play here. It’s quite possible some team that actually likes Michel is trying to leak out bad stuff about him so that he falls to their pick. That’s pretty messed up to screw with a young man’s life like that, but I wouldn’t put it past NFL people.

This popped up a couple of days ago, so I would lean toward there being something to it, and not likely just a purposeful fake leak.